Legalise It?

Last year comments made by a leading Tory MP followed by relaxing of laws have once again raised the controversial debate concerning the decriminalisation of cannabis. This much talked about issue has a number of factors that need to be considered if it were to become legal.

One comparison often made for reference is that with cigarettes and alcohol. This is probably done as these are two products open for public consumption that are known to adversely affect the general health of people. There is no getting away from the fact that cannabis is not 'good' for people, but in the grand scheme of things are they really as harmful as some presume? For the Tory minister the answer to this question is no. To most that think rationally, the answer must surely be no. It is worth noting however, that relatively little is known of the long term effects that cannabis can have and most research focuses on the short term effects. For example, there is support for the theory that smoking cannabis kills off brain cells.

One major difference between cannabis and the aforementioned products are the labels that society has attached to them. Drugs are said to be addictive. Is this not true of virtually everything? Addiction can be psychological as much as physiological, and people can be addicted to anything from heroin and cannabis, to chocolate and sex. No addiction could ever be a positive thing for an individual, be it to any of the above. For if someone is reliant and dependant on anything, they have lost an element of control over their lives. Drugs alter our state of mind. So do so many things. Alcohol and cigarettes are obvious examples, but there are others such as herbal tea. Similarities between the two have been drawn before, and it is not hard to see why. Both relax you and give you an easy feeling. There are so many drugs all around us in socially acceptable forms. It is here that the biggest difference between cannabis and the legal products we have mentioned lie. Cannabis is as yet not strictly socially acceptable in British society. Things like coffee, alcohol and cigarettes are not considered to be drugs. This label of 'drug' that has been given to cannabis stigmatises it, and gives a false impression of its effects and the potential for harm that it holds.

This is one argument used by the Dutch authorities when talking of the liberal climate in which they live. By separating the soft drugs and hard drugs from each other, they have made a clear distinction between the two. They consider this to be the reason for their having very few young heroin addicts for example. The average age of heroin addicts in the Netherlands has risen to thirty-six years old. This possibly eliminates the 'gateway drug' culture that cannabis has become known for. Segregating it from harder drugs shows the substantial differences they have, with those differences that exist on life-changing proportions. Perhaps this will lead people to consider the leap they are truly making when moving from using one drug to the next. However, the flip-side to this argument would be that young people like to try some things to be rebellious. For many this will be smoking some cannabis, but if this ceases to be a rebellious action what will they turn to? Perhaps their fleeting rendezvous with the 'other side' will be using ecstasy or cocaine, both of which could have much more serious repercussions. This has not been the case in the Netherlands though, with less and less under eighteens even using cannabis in comparison to America. This is also certainly linked to their alcohol laws however.

Along with the labelling of cannabis comes the perceived end for users. That is the life of a 'drug addict'. The thought of an addict can conjure up pictures of impoverished individuals, stealing and mugging to feed their habits. All the while they will be living off the state, claiming false benefits and generally be people of few scruples. Once again, this may seem slightly flippant but it is how some consider addicts. In fact, as most should know this is a false representation. The idea that drugs are very much a working-class culture is wrong, drugs are rife amongst middle-class institutions such as public schools. This becomes true as the drugs in question become stronger. There are a variety of reasons for this, one of which being the sheer cost. With too much money and time on their hands, what are they going to do to entertain themselves? Often the answer will come back as dabbling in drugs. They are also well known to be commonplace in high-powered jobs. Men working twenty hours a day, fuelled by mixes of speed and cocaine in order to keep themselves going. All of the bad reputation that drugs pick up for themselves, of which much is deserving, goes some way to further demonising cannabis.

Another worry for those against the decriminalisation of cannabis is not the effect on the individual, but the effect it may have on society as a whole. This change in the law may mean a rise in crime and anti-social behaviour. Once more, this has not been the situation in the Netherlands. Drug-related deaths were the lowest in Europe, AIDS victims were down and Dutch prison numbers are low when compared with most. It should be noted that the last point of low prison numbers should be seen in context. With their liberal laws, there are obviously fewer offences for the population to commit. The effects of cannabis consumption are also more likely to reduce the amount of violence in society, as opposed to increasing it. Again, this would more likely be the case with the stronger drugs.

For some, the legalisation of cannabis would simply be a step in the wrong direction. Whilst cannabis itself is not going to cause the downfall of society, it sets a negative trend for the future. It does appear that things have indeed happened the wrong way round however. As already mentioned, most will accept that cigarettes are far worse for you than cannabis is. However, cigarettes are a part of our society now and the argument is that if cannabis is illegal, then surely it is simple logic to recognise cigarettes should be made illegal. The effects of some chemicals that exist in cigarettes are not even known. This is obviously never going to be the case, and whether it should be or not does make the point invalid.

Much like anything else, one important feature of using cannabis responsibly is the regularity. In moderation and at appropriate times, there is nothing wrong in theory. This scenario might be slightly different if it was during work hours and suchlike, which would not make the staff the most productive. This is the same with alcohol though, and the idea that people will go out during their lunch break and get heavily drunk is unacceptable. There should be no difference between usage of either in this respect. It is more likely that once again mirroring alcohol, it will be the youth that do not understand what 'moderation' means. In hospitals, it is the younger drinkers that are usually the ones getting their stomachs pumped, or are suffering from alcohol poisoning. It would more than likely be the same with cannabis were it to become legal. This evidently should be a consideration, but then maybe it is policing that ought to be reconsidered. Perhaps an answer would be to take a more stringent approach with identification, as in North America. When going into a nightclub for example, identification will not even be asked for, but instead is required from everyone upon entry and is also used to identify troublemakers in cooperation with the police. This type of measure would not only protect the innocents, but allow the liberalisation of laws without the same fear and trepidation.

It should be remembered that changing the laws need not encourage, or even advocate the use of cannabis. Similar to cigarettes, health warnings and suchlike would be apparent. It is maybe here that the most advantages are felt by the government. With legalisation comes the potential for regulation. If there were 'specialist shops' as suggested, there would be some system of trade. This would inevitably lead to the industry being turned professional, and treated as such with processes ensuring a safe and effective product. This would not only look after the welfare of users, but also eliminate some of the black market trade. Along with this, competition and universality would develop, and in turn force down prices. It cannot be denied that more and more people are now using cannabis recreationally, and it is a recognised global trend. In order to maintain some control over this ever-spiralling growth, the government would surely have to involve itself in the process somewhere along the line. It should be made clear that they are not saying that people should take drugs, in the same way as they say cigarettes are not advisable.

Perhaps it would even take away the 'forbidden fruit' element. However, concerns on the part of many are understandable. Maybe one alternative way of thinking about it is trying to empathise and imagine your sixteen year old daughter stoned all the time. The responsibility of education cannot solely fall on the shoulders of the government, and parents should be trying to teach their children the difference between right and wrong. More concerning for the future might be the influence that advertising and those in positions of respect and their actions have over the youth and their choices concerning drugs. For this broadcasting, responsibility must fall at the feet of those that produce the destructive images. The decriminalisation of cannabis cannot account for this eventuality though and it is unlikely that anything would affect the aftermath of the legislation. Once more, you need look no further than cigarettes and the limelight and positive promotion they receive to know that this will certainly be the case with cannabis.

by Phil Jameson